User talk:Paul foord
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives
1 (Apr 05-Mar 06) | - 2 (Apr 06-Sep 07) | - 3 (Oct 07-Mar 08) | -
[edit] Category:Ballets Russes and descendants
This is what we've come up with (that's not the royal "we"; it's been a collaborative effort.) Robert Greer (talk)
- P.S. I trust you're aware of Wikipedia's automatically generated Category:WikiProject Ballet articles.
-
- Anything with an old {{WikiProject Ballet}} or your new and improved {{WikiProject Dance|Ballet=yes}} tag shows up here.)
-
-
- Robert Greer (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Dance and health
Glad to see that you consider dance and health important! I've put in headings and added a small bit to the article - would you consider it start class now? Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Maralinga, South Australia
Thanks for your very prompt support for my edits. I could not believe how the whole mess had been whitewashed! I worked for many years in Central Australia and have had the privilege of hearing first-hand many horrific stories from survivors of the Maralinga tests - both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, and this rewrite of history really angered me. All best wishes. John Hill (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Indigenous people of Australia
No problems. Let me know if there's anything else required. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Psychological conditions
I have nominated the discussion page. Thank you. Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at[edit] communities peoples
The move of Australian Aboriginal tribes to Indigenous Australian communities creates an issue for Category:Indigenous Australian communities. That category, following the ABS uses communities in terms of towns, outstations, etc. such as Mutitjulu, Mimili, Wadeye. See also the discussion on the talk page -- Paul foord (talk) 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see a problem, I'll try to explain my thinking and you can let me know what I'm missing. The term 'community' is appropriate, I expect that different org.s and govt. bodies - other than ABS - use it different ways. Any person would belong to several communities, even by the stricter definitions of the aforementioned. One 'belongs' to these communities (is included within), but reside in only one town or place. Community does not equal locality, it it would embrace these groups more accurately. I could produce a more coherent definition, I suppose we should look into the various 'official' ones. cygnis insignis 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- An alternative would be to rename it as Indigenous peoples of Australia (as in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia to match that category, avoiding the ambiguity re locations. Paul foord (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I considered 'peoples' as a substitute and I use it in articles, but there is little difference between that and the 'main' article, Indigenous Australians, a designation that is very general and not very useful. (Perhaps we should move the article?) Self identification is a way of determining a community's members, and I think that is the most frequently used term. cygnis insignis 08:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- An alternative would be to rename it as Indigenous peoples of Australia (as in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia to match that category, avoiding the ambiguity re locations. Paul foord (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Working through the articles for the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia articles it seems that Indigenous peoples of Australia probably would be the best article title. Paul foord (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Which article!? ;-) I'm still undecided on the issue, if some documention turns up to consolidate the nomenclature, I'll let you and the project know. I went with my own reasons and sources, but the instinct derived from your great labor overrules this. I willing to bet you have a lot of ideas for improvements after all that work on the current articles. If you want to start by moving this article again, its okay with me. Cheers, cygnis insignis 13:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, article I will move is Indigenous Australian communities. Paul foord (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cat:Organizations stubs
In the future, please bring stub categories that you wish to change the name of to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion, rather than attempting to do so out of process. Had you done that, you would have discovered that the existing Cat:Organization stubs follows the naming guidelines for stub categories and was not in need of having an extra "s" added. I presume you were trying to fix the redlink on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations, but that was fixable by providing a parameter to the {{topic}} template. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was trying to fix it, I am not familiar with the intricacies of wiki coding. Paul foord (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikimedia Australia incorporation meeting
Hi there Paul foord! As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation has recently approved Wikimedia Australia as an official chapter. In order to acknowledge this, and to appoint an interim committee, approve our statement of purpose and our rules, and appoint a Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia will be having a meeting at Computerbank in Melbourne. For those of us who are located in other cities, we shall be holding conference calls to the main meeting. The meeting will be held at 2:30PM on Sunday, 20th April 2008, Adelaide time. In order for us to organise this meeting, we need your help! Please drop by at our meta subpage with suggestions as to venues, conference calling services, etc. It will be at 2:30 so we can meet up for lunch beforehand if anyone's open for that! Hoping to see you there! ~ Riana ⁂ 01:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Indigenous
Tireless editing of Indigenous articles Barnstar Award | ||
As your edits fly by on my watch page I cannot but marvel at your tireless positive contribution to |the Indigenous Australian project and articles - well done! SatuSuro 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) |
- Thanks Paul foord (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wangle people => Wangal people
Yeah SatuSuro for awarding the barnstar above! It is certainly well deserved!!
Regarding the Indigneous Australian's WikiProject's 'open task' note you posted .. plus the associated 'prod' regarding Wangle people ..
.. it seems to have been a legit. article (if very very minimal) slightly mispelt ... I have now moved to Wangal people, slightly upgraded the original .. and removed your prod..
Not sure if you wish to remove note from the Wikiproject page?! Bruceanthro (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Have done so, thanks. Paul foord (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ratings
Thanks, actually I thought I might have been going to far.--Grahame (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arrernte
Hi, I saw you added some unsourced information in the Australian Indigenous people related article Arrernte. Pease see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and verifiability. If you want to add more information in the article, that's fine, but please follow WP:V. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am puzzled by your deletion of material within minutes of its creation. Have you looked at my contributions before deciding to delete most of the material at Arrernte.
- If you are working on the article, then use an "underconstruction" template so that other users can understand that the article is under major rework. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Same happened to me on Utrecht (city), incremental expansion of a section is hardly major revamping of an article, but if allowing that tag up buys me the time to get the refs in place, so be it... Arnoutf (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, as some sections are under major rework in the article Utrecht (city), hence the "underconstruction" template should be used in that sections. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Same happened to me on Utrecht (city), incremental expansion of a section is hardly major revamping of an article, but if allowing that tag up buys me the time to get the refs in place, so be it... Arnoutf (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you are working on the article, then use an "underconstruction" template so that other users can understand that the article is under major rework. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mix of names
I know of the talk at the project page - but the mix of the problem of the language group, the 'people' arts and even further again divisions - it looks as though one of the arrente arts should end up as a half disambig/half link to the subsidiary arts if they are likely to be expanded ever - otherwise perhaps a big mere of the lot in th eone art perhaps? anyways just an idea - cheers SatuSuro 10:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Three article probably, ppl/lang/ccl, although it appears the groups are trying to separately identify themselves. Paul foord (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Must drop off an email sometime about how this makes our tasks even worse in some parts of the country than others - btw have you seen the new book on daisy bates? the article on wiki hasnt a single inline cite and smells of a lift from it :| SatuSuro 11:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Substantial parts of Daisy Bates (Australia) have not changed since I last edited it on 16 November 2006.
- Must drop off an email sometime about how this makes our tasks even worse in some parts of the country than others - btw have you seen the new book on daisy bates? the article on wiki hasnt a single inline cite and smells of a lift from it :| SatuSuro 11:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- There are lots of microstubs for named peoples, they should probably be deleted rather than moved and create new articles from the lists. Paul foord (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- gawd my sincerest apologies i hadnt looked at the edit history (humbarrassed) - its uncanny de vries work (only out the lat month or so) touches on considerabley similar stuff with the art - oh well back in my hole over there by the nullabor dingo (shuffle shuffle...) SatuSuro 11:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Easy enough conclusion, maybe the influence went the other way! Unfortunately jumping to conclusions is not good exercise - for that i do aerobics, dance or yoga. Paul foord (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Heheh - must re-read art and book for all that :( - i have an underexercised jack russell terrier when the real stuff starts SatuSuro 12:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why?
Is there any specific reason you are reverting my edits? 124.171.30.172 (talk) 13:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Responded at User talk:124.171.30.172 Paul foord (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template change
IMHO the Indig OZ template needs a separate section for state histories - and the tas and west oz starts as they are need to go in (other states and territories as red links for incentives?)- the random non alpha aspect of the current history part of the template is a bit misleading - what do you think - alpha order? SatuSuro 08:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Indigenous Australians is very dense/unfriendly at present. Not having an article on 'Australian Aborigines' (not preferred by many) or 'Indigenous peoples of mainland Australia' (clumsy but maybe better) doesn't help - the old peoples/people confusion is evident on the template also - the first group should be | mainland peoples | Tasmanian Aborigines | Torres Strait Islanders (| maybe Tiwi people). Agree something needs to be done. Maybe need to move further discussion to the WP talk page. Paul foord (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - will do later - cheers SatuSuro
[edit] UWAP QP MUP etc
The stubs are inadequate and there have been more (presses that is) - somewhere down the line at thread 459,812,736 (heheh) will do something maybe :| SatuSuro 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Eskaravelho
I have nominated Eskaravelho, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskaravelho. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opera project category changes
Hi. I see you are changing the project categories connected to opera but I am unable to understand why. Can you possibly explain what you have been doing? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- As noted here there is no WikiProject Performing arts, The other change included WP Opera in WP Theatre. It is useful being able to see such relationships in the WP cats. Paul foord (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Right, now I understand the Performing Arts Project is defunct, but what does "The other change included WP Opera in WP Theatre" mean? Opera is not part of 'theatre' in any WP structures and with good reason - it's one of the performing arts, even if a WP Performing Arts Project no longer exists. Also Richard Wagner and Gilbert and Sullivan are descendant projects of Opera. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- There never was a WP PA as far as I can see - re the other thing, apologies if I got it wrong, from the outside it seems Opera, Musical theatre & G&S would logically come under music & theatre. Paul foord (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- OK, I think I am beginning to understand. It seems we all assumed the existence of WP PA. It's fine to list Opera with both Music and Theatre but I've also restored it at the Arts level with the other performing arts. I think that's OK now. I am not sure how Musical theatre fits into the structure - maybe under Theatre - but I'm not involved in that project. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] class=redirect and class=Dab etc.
Thank you! Robert Greer (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Might you have a look at this?
I've posted a topic here [[1]] and was wondering what you thought?Smatprt (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] to link or not to link
[edit] Child life specialist page
Paul, I noticed your work on the Child development page and I value your insight! I'm a relatively new user, and I just created a Child life specialist page. I'm wondering if you would check it out and possible give me a bit of feedback on the page? Thanks for your help! Carleyj (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)carleyj
[edit] Ballet portal
Thank you for the contributions to the ballet portal; so far it's just you and me and hasn't been announced. Do you know any other Wiki. balletomanes who'd be good editors? — Robert Greer 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] nested=yes
P.S. We must have a browser update because nested=yes is finally doing what it's supposed to! — Robert Greer (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Invention in the Arts
Hi, Please take a look at the section: Invention in the Arts on the Invention page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention. I hope you can contribute some information. Thanks! --Sara USA (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo vs. Category: Ballets Russes and descendants
I moved the few entries in Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo into the more general Category: Ballets Russes and descendants, of which the former is a sub-category (I moved two categories, Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo dancers and Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo choreographers, and two pages, Wassily de Basil and René Blum, to be exact; almost everybody who was in one of the three companies was in at least one of the other two.) Do you object to my asking for deletion of Category:Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo as it is now empty? We are the only two people who've ever so much as touched it. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Revision history of Historical revisionism
Work with me please. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ondine
May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! — Robert Greer (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Ashton / Henze / Ondine / Undine
I regret to inform you that the party who wanted to merge Ondine (Ashton) into Undine (Henze) has been unable to accept Wiki. administrator DGG's determination that the two articles should remain seperate. Your comments on Talk:Ondine (Ashton) would be welcome! — Robert Greer (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed deletion of List of early emo groups
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of early emo groups, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? neonwhite user page talk 15:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations
why is it in the cat Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of Australia? ninety:one 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Updating {{WikiProject Dance}}
Hi there! Of course I'd be delighted to help you with {{WikiProject Dance}} - it looks like a fairly standard banner. I would like to know before I try anything, however: how many of the banner's parameters does WikiProject Dance actually use? |small=, |nested=, |class=, |importance= are all obviously vital, but you also have functionality for |attention=, |portal=, |needs-image=, |orphan=, |dykdate=, |peer-review= and |old-peer-review=, as well as |Ballet=. How many of these features are actually used by the project? Any that are unused should be removed to reduce load time and improve the durability of the template. Many thanks, Happy‑melon 18:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I use |Ballet=yes together with |nested=yes extensively to avoid having to put two seperate templates, {{WikiProject Dance}} and {{WikiProject Ballet}}. Doing so saves screen space and produces a banner giving both WikiProjects' names. — Robert Greer (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- That's good to know; what I was actually asking is, for how many of these features does the relevant infrastructure actually exist? For instance, the banner has code for |peer-review=yes, but does WikiProject Dance actually have a peer review department? Does anyone ever patrol the category associated with |needs-image=? The text snipppet which is displayed with |orphan= ("This article is not assigned to a WikiProject or workgroup") makes no sense to me whatsoever, and not being familiar with WikiProject Dance, I don't know if you have any articles where the |dykdate= would be appropriate and useful. These are the details I really need to be able to clean up the banner. Happy‑melon 21:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Student Christian Movement of Canada
A tag has been placed on Student Christian Movement of Canada, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}}
on the top of Student Christian Movement of Canada and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. GreenJoe 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)